I'd say it largely depends on the exact case scenario, but in general, people unwilling to not use an optional overpowered feature that is easy to avoid using have no right to take that feature away from people who want to use it. you are more than welcome to shoot yourself in the foot, but don't take away everyone's gun privileges because you cant stop yourself from doing so.
I don't see it this way at all because it's not a "privilege" it's just a part of a game.
I think this is generally reasonable overly lacking in nuance. Game creators should have the freedom to include more or fewer player groups in their vision. A game meant to appeal to both beginners and experts (e.g. Smash Bros. Ultimate) should have different group balancing expectations than a game more focused on beginners (e.g. Smash Bros. Brawl). Also, like above, even games choosing to cast wide nets on player groups can only be expected to go so far. A Pokemon game accessible to a 6 year old, yet fresh and challenging for tournament winners, is a tall ask.
I watched someone figure this out on their second shrine out of the tutorial area on launch day, so probably a decent amount of people figured that out or recall tricks.
This actually brings up the fact that I think Sakurai has generally been a major failure in his conquest to appeal to new players specifically, and I can explain that more in another reply if you want, but for the relevant pat of this argument: Yes, but most games aren't Nintendo games. There are RPGs designed for older teens/adults that also have bad balancing that makes it very exploitable.
I generally agree with your post... but like. This comes across as "why did you use these examples?", but you vagueposted on a Pokemon site and used TOTK as your example: Smash and Pokemon were totally fair context. If they're not what you mean, that's fine, the clarification is useful, but if you were looking to hear other examples, that's on you.
That's fair, you make a good point.
that first point is a fantastic point. the thing is, that games are both toys and art. and it is hard to determine when you should prioritize what. you have given me a valuable new perspective. however, the rest of your post dosent really touch on this detail, and is rather just more of your last post. something to note is that shrines being possible to cheese IS AN INTENTIONAL FEATURE. the developers wanted to make the player feel smart for being able to "abuse" the games mechanics. in fact, this design philosophy teaches the player to take what they learned and apply it to areas where it dosent even seem like it could be applied. The example you provided is in my eyes a great example of why exploits can be great for a game. furthermore, my motivation for playing the game is to have fun, and I don't find a lot of the Zelda puzzles fun. overpowered features allow me to essentially skip the parts of the game I don't like so I can access the parts I do. sometimes this comes at the cost of the artists voice,and that can be sad, and in certain situations I now would say to stop people from doing this. but you have to remember why people play games too. this is a lot more subjective than either of us made it out to be initially, and while I still prioritise fun over art in most scenarios, your argument has ultimately changed my opinion.
I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, I firmly believe that the "correct" way to engage with art is whatever way allows you to derive the most value from it, regardless of artist intent. If someone gets more out of a game when they don't use the optimal strategies, far be it from me to tell them that they're playing it wrong. On the other hand, every decision by the artist has the potential to influence people to engage with the art in a way that isn't as conducive to deriving value, and I don't think that artists should get a pass for those decisions just because it's possible to get more out of a piece of art by going against the way you are influenced to engage with it. I don't think that a player can ever be faulted for using the most optimal strategy for success in a game ("success" being, of course, a subjective thing that player and game come together to define, though we can probably agree that success most often looks like overcoming challenges and getting rewards because most games are structured as systems of challenge and reward), even if it's not very enjoyable. In my view, the onus is always on the developer to ensure that the optimal strategy for a game is an enjoyable one to the maximum extent possible (assuming that enjoyment is a goal), though players very often discover abuses that the developer didn't catch. If the optimal strategy sucks, I won't ever accept "don't play optimally" as a valid counterargument.
This is basically what I meant, this is a much better way of wording it though.
Potentially, but if it is it's IMO bad design and I think it's part of what makes TOTK a 7/10 game compared to BOTW, which is funny because I am literally the exact playerbase they mean to court. I fell off of 3D Zelda every time as a kid because I thought the puzzle solving was not fun, BotW solved this by giving several solutions and focusing more on physics rather than "shoot this thing" "press and hold A on this boulder" "hit this event flick switch"
See I don't get what you mean by this, but I don't agree. A game can be "a toy" but a lot of games aren't.
So basically good design is just letting people skip all of the content they don't like? Would you apply this to watching a movie in a theater? "The optimal version of this experience is to cut out all the scenes I don't like!"
People play games for a variety of reasons. If you're referring to the people who just want to see action shit and move on, there is always a consumer in any medium who just wants "Entertainment" and nothing more. That doesn't mean art for it should be made with the intent of appealing to that audience specifically.
it was part of botws design philosophy too.
yes. its not practical to do, but if there was a hypothetical option to buy a movie without the content that you don't like, that would be an objectively great feature.
there are a lot of reasons people play games, but for practically every single person, at least 90% of the reason they play games is to enjoy themselves. I don't know if toys are the right word, but excluding maybe the horror and rage game genres, basically every single game ever made was made with the intention of having people have fun.
the problem with IGN is specifically the fact that the reviews are all done by different people. It means there is no coherent worldview being presented and thus whether the score is "right" or "wrong" in your opinion it is impossible to reason about how trustworthy it is because you have no real reliable way to compare against stuff.
The solution to this problem is to play on Hard Mode instead of playing on Bitch Baby Mode (Normal Mode) (jk)
What is this doing in the hot takes thread? At least as far as politicians are concerned, this is just a statement of fact.
I agree with some criticism and I think there's some magic that was lost (obviously, can't catch lightning in a bottle twice), but like the majority of genuine hate I see for the remake is just people being unhappy it's not the original
I kinda had a feeling it may work because Blooper consistently improved from game to game and listened to criticism, made the best out of it
